Hallin v. Lyngstad
2013 ND 168
| N.D. | 2013Background
- 1960 warranty deed conveyed certain Mountrail County land; grantors were Emma & John Lyngstad and Walter & Esther Brandt; grantee received surface and 1/4 of minerals.
- Before the deed, Emma owned 1/3 of the surface and minerals and Walter owned 2/3; John and Esther were not in the prior chain of title.
- The deed language excepted and expressly reserved “unto the Grantors” an “undivided 3/4 interest” in all minerals.
- Dispute: whether the reservation reallocated mineral ownership equally among the grantors (creating new equal undivided shares) or left each grantor with their pre-deed proportional share of the reserved 3/4.
- Procedural posture: cross-motions for summary judgment; district court quieted title in plaintiffs (Hallins, successors to Walter Brandt) to 2/3 of the reserved undivided 3/4 mineral interest; Lyngstads appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hallin's Argument | Lyngstad's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of reservation wording "excepting and expressly reserving unto the Grantors an undivided 3/4 interest" — does it regrant equal shares or preserve pre-deed proportions? | Reservation preserved each grantor’s pre-deed proportional ownership (so Brandt heirs hold 2/3 of the 3/4). | Language creates a new undivided interest among the named grantors presumed to be equal (so split 1/2–1/2 of the 3/4). | Court held the deed was unambiguous and the reservation did not alter pre-deed proportions; Hallins (Brandt successors) entitled to 2/3 of the reserved 3/4. |
| Whether reservation could convey interests to non-title strangers (John, Esther) absent explicit grantor intent | Hallin: reservation cannot expand interests to strangers beyond what existed pre-deed (Malloy limited). | Lyngstad: reservation created new rights in favor of all named grantors, including non-title parties; cite Malloy/statute. | Court declined to extend Malloy to abrogate Stetson; no clear intent in the deed to convey new equal interests to strangers, so reservation did not create such conveyances. |
| Ambiguity of deed language requiring extrinsic evidence or reformation | Hallin: deed unambiguous; interpret from four corners; no reformation. | Lyngstad: contend deed silent as to proportions so should be read to create equal tenancy in common. | Court found deed language unambiguous and resolved intent from the instrument; no reformation needed. |
| Proper disposition on summary judgment | Hallin: entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on deed text and undisputed facts. | Lyngstad: summary judgment inappropriate; deed language creates factual ambiguity about intent/proportions. | Court affirmed summary judgment for Hallins; legal question only and deed unambiguous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malloy v. Boettcher, 334 N.W.2d 8 (N.D. 1983) (discusses when a reservation may operate in favor of a third party and limits on applying the common-law rule)
- Stetson v. Nelson, 118 N.W.2d 685 (N.D. 1962) (common-law rule that reservations in favor of strangers operate for grantor)
- Christman v. Emineth, 212 N.W.2d 543 (N.D. 1973) (distinguishing reservation and exception; technical term yields to grantor intent)
- Nichols v. Goughnour, 820 N.W.2d 740 (N.D. 2012) (standards for summary judgment and deed construction)
- Waldock v. Amber Harvest Corp., 820 N.W.2d 755 (N.D. 2012) (rules for construing deeds and ascertaining grantor intent)